AS the world reeled at the barbaric killing of 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris, freedom of speech was the dominant theme of last week.

Journalists – myself among them – united to send the same messages to the terrorists that the threat of violence must never undermine free expression. Cartoonists came out in support of their dead colleagues by producing an array of brilliantly defiant illustrations.

"The pen is mightier than the sword," was the cry that echoed around the world.

The truth, of course, is that those three simple words – freedom of speech – are far from simple in their application. They come together to pose a most complex dilemma for society because we would all draw the line in a different place on censorship.

As a newspaper editor, I receive protests about the comments I allow to be posted on articles on The Northern Echo's website, and about the comments I choose delete because I judge them to be unacceptably offensive to a named individual, racist, or libellous. But it's difficult, isn't it? What one person considers to be completely acceptable, another may view as an abuse of free speech.

The day before the Paris shootings, our columnist, the Reverend Peter Mullen, stirred up quite a controversy by arguing that it would be a "cruel and unusual punishment and one that lacks all justice" if convicted rapist Ched Evans were to be banned from resuming his career as a professional footballer, now that he has completed his sentence.

Not for the first time, I had readers demanding to know why The Northern Echo continues to employ such a columnist, and urging me to sack him. Why? For holding an opinion?

There have been many times I have disagreed with Peter Mullen. Occasionally, I have felt he had crossed the line. But a newspaper editor does not have to agree with a columnist in order to go on publishing his or her views. Good columnists inspire a reaction and make us think again. Peter Mullen does just that.

I may not agree with what he says every week – but I defend his right to his opinion.

THE last word on the Paris shootings goes to Stephane Charbonnier, editorial director of Charlie Hebdo, who was killed in Wednesday's slaughter.

"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees."

OVER the years, I've found myself saying some pretty bizarre things in the course of covering the news, and last week produced one of the most unlikely yet.

I'd checked my iPad before going to bed and a message had come through on Twitter: "Did you know there was an earthquake in Leyburn this morning?"

It was accompanied by a link to the British Geological Survey website, with the details of the quake. It had happened at 11.03am, at a depth of two kilometres and measuring 1.9 in magnitude.

I was straight on to the night news editor, Andrew Douglas, and uttered a sentence which has probably never been uttered before and will never be uttered again: "There's been an earthquake in Leyburn."

There was a pause, then a sigh, and then a question: "Have you been on the red wine?"

Having assured him that I'm doing "Dry January", he got on with his job and broke the story on our website, as well as beating the deadline for the following morning's paper.

The Echo reported it wasn't a very big earthquake. In fact, no one in Leyburn had even noticed. "I didn't feel a thing," said Dave Close, landlord of the Golden Lion.

By the weekend, the story had moved on. It seems the Leyburn "earthquake" was more likely to have been down to activity at a local quarry.

More like an earthfake.

THE maddest press release of the week has come in from Paddy Power, the bookmaker, offering odds of 500-1 that Benedict Cumberbatch will name his first child Bumbercatch.

I'm on for a Holmes win.